Judgment:
$~43 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order:
17. 12.2018 C.R.P. No.274/2018 SANJAY KHANNA & ANR ........ Petitioner
s Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Kshitij Paliwal & Ms. Raadhika Gupta, Advs. Versus M/S SOUTH DELHI MONEY CHANGER (P) LTD & ORS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL C.M. No.52821/2018 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. C.R.P. No.274/2018 & C.M. No.52822/2018 (for stay) 1. The impugned order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (‘ADJ’) in Civil Suit No.6086
for recovery of Rs.9,13,130/- dismissing the application of the petitioners/respondent Nos.5 & 6 seeking deletion from the array of parties, is the subject- matter of challenge in this revision petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1, a company dealing in money exchange, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,13,130/- C.R.P. No.274/2018 Page 1 of 4 against the respondent on the ground ‘4. That the defendant Nos.2 to 6 visited the plaintiff’s office at New Delhi for purchasing 15000 US$ from the plaintiff for traveling to Bangkok and the plaintiff raised invoice No.20066, 20067, 20068, 20069 and 20070 all dated 5.4.2014 for a total sum of Rs.9,13,130/-.’ It is pleaded further “5. That in discharge of their liability towards the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 through the defendant No.2 and on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 to 6, had issued one cheque bearing No.198143 dated 5.4.2014 for Rs.9,13,130/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Manesar, Gurgaon, in favour of the plaintiff with the assurances that the same will be honourned on its presentation.’ The said cheque was admittedly dishonoured.
3. In the corresponding paragraph of the written statement jointly filed by the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5, it is pleaded ‘that the contents of para 4 of plaint are wrong and denied except the facts stated herein. It is submitted that it is the plaintiff who has approached the defendants on enquiry so made for said travelling to Bangkok, but no such invoices as mentioned in the para under reply, were ever raised or received by the defendants.’ While replying to para 5 of the plaint, it is pleaded ‘5. That the contents of para 5 of plaint are wrong and denied except the facts admitted herein. It is clarified that the said cheque of Rs.9,13,130/- was merely given as a security, on the mutual understanding that in case the said travel plan is cancelled due to certain reasons, then purchased dollars will be refunded and the said cheque, will be returned. It is further elucidated C.R.P. No.274/2018 Page 2 of 4 that due to personal reasons, the said travel plan could not materialize and thus said mutual oral understanding, was immediately put into effect by defendants by returning the said dollars to plaintiff; but the plaintiff did not adhere to its part of the oral contract, thereby refused to return the said cheque which was merely given for the purposes of security. It is submitted that in case actualization of travel plan, the cost of dollars were to be paid separately and the security cheque was meant to be returned. Thus, it is clear that the said cheque was never issued for the purposes of discharge of any liability but was given merely as a security purpose, to be refunded if the travel plan is not actualized.’ 4. It is, thus, evident from the pleadings of both the parties that on the personal request of petitioners and respondent no.3 to 5, the respondent No.1/plaintiff company provided them 15000 US$. In order to discharge their liability, the respondent No.3 to 5, being the Directors of respondent no.2 and petitioners being sons of respondent No.3 got issued a cheque of Rs.9,13,130/- from the respondent no.2 company’s account to respondent No.1. It, thus, comes out that it is the petitioners and the respondent Nos.3 to 5, who have obtained the services and benefit of 15000 US$ from respondent No.1 and, therefore, no question arises for their deletion from the array of parties. The question of petitioners and respondent no.3 to 5 returning the 15000 US$ is a matter of trial. C.R.P. No.274/2018 Page 3 of 4 5. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned ADJ.
As such, the revision petition along with the application, being C.M. No.52822/2018, is dismissed with no order as to costs. DECEMBER17 2018 ‘AA’ (VINOD GOEL) JUDGE C.R.P. No.274/2018 Page 4 of 4